I would consider such a marriage a farce and not a real marriage. These sorts of things only come up because marriage has legal implications beyond the simple definition I listed above. These legal implications have unintended consequences, as almost all legal constructs do.

Once you start trying to define something in a legal manner, it becomes vastly more complicated. You end up having to specify exceptions and specifics for every person who is going to try to game the system.

I'm doing well, too. Thanks!

So the legal definition of marriage is irrelevant to the actual definition?

Not going to answer for Two-Sheds (he's fully capable of doing that for himself!) but, IMO... I wouldn't go so far as to say irrelevant but I'd say that the legal definition goes off on a tangent of it's own.

"Marriage" is used to divide us as well as bringing us together. The State grants benefits based on marital status and as such, needs a formal definition of who is/isn't married to determine who gets/doesn't get those benefits. This is where the legal definition comes into play.

If one disregards the possibility of those benefits then the legal stuff becomes irrelevant to the larger concept.

It's a legal relationship between two individuals that defines them legally and socially, and may or may not be recognized by a religious entity, that provides them with certain responsibilities and benefits.

Ok, let's look at each of your statements and you can answer as you see fit. If I'm stretching what you said too far just let me know.

In the US you said that you are married if it is recognized by the law. But aren't Mormons married in ways that isn't recognized by law and they still consider themselves married?

With the "nuclear family unit", isn't it conceivable that two people are considered to be married without ever having the intention of being a family unit at all?

And finally the "groupings based on mating and survival of the species", many people have mated and procreated without ever being married. This also ties in to one of the arguments from the court hearings. Is it an essential part of marriage that it has to be intended towards producing offspring?

Intellectually, I'm reaching my limit, but here goes:

I do not believe in marriage as an abstract or absolute concept. I only understand the word in its practical application. I know that's no help to a philosopher, but I'm not a philosopher.

The Mormon polygamous marriage is not a legal marriage. A few sects may call it that, but calling it marriage doesn't make it marriage. Same for the African ceremonial marriage; that couple is not legally married in the states. The French have an interesting situation now because they have immigrants who were legally polygamously married in their home countries, but France doesn't allow polygamy (I think I have this right, but I might be off on the details.) So the French are having huge issues with things like welfare and public housing because each wife wants her own place.

I don't understand your point about two people being considered to be married, even though they didn't intend it. The only thing I know about that is that common law marriage laws were put into place to address social problems that arose from people cohabiting and not marrying. But they were intentionally cohabiting.

As for the pairing off for promoting the survival of the species, I put in some weasel words about how that particular social unit wants to promote their survival, and that doesn't necessarily mean that all units are reproductive units. At least one Native American tribe had "twin spirit people" who were, they think, transgender people who could live as the other sex and have a household. My other point was that I'm not referring to prehistoric relationships as marriages; I think marriage is a very modern concept, focused on regulating property and care of children and some rights to make decision for the spouse.

But again, I look at this in a practical and legal way. As an example, if you are a registered pharmacist in the US, that doesn't make you one in the Philapines.

So the legal definition of marriage is irrelevant to the actual definition?

Jim answered probably better than I was going to. A legal definition is the recipe for implemention. I may be able to define what a house is, but that definition isn't sufficient to build a house that is legally up to code. That code is not necessarily part of the definition of a house, it's just what's necessary to implement it under a specific circumstance.

What do you mean by formalize?

You got me there, since formalizing it usually means a legal document, which opens the door on the legal definition, which I just tried to close the door on. I would say that formalizing it is both the legal contract, and a public declaration - i.e., people now know that you are married. Also, most people aren't concerned with the all the legal implications of their marriage, anyway, so I don't think all the implications need to be part of the definition. The legal implication that most people are concerned with is the one in my original definition (sharing a life and all that comes out of it).

Not going to answer for Two-Sheds (he's fully capable of doing that for himself!) but, IMO... I wouldn't go so far as to say irrelevant but I'd say that the legal definition goes off on a tangent of it's own.

"Marriage" is used to divide us as well as bringing us together. The State grants benefits based on marital status and as such, needs a formal definition of who is/isn't married to determine who gets/doesn't get those benefits. This is where the legal definition comes into play.

If one disregards the possibility of those benefits then the legal stuff becomes irrelevant to the larger concept.

Ok so let's forget about the legal definition then if that's the consensus. The legal definition SHOULD end up following from the definition anyways.

It's a legal relationship between two individuals that defines them legally and socially, and may or may not be recognized by a religious entity, that provides them with certain responsibilities and benefits.

Excellent definition. I've already given the example of polygamists so the "legal" part, while important, is out of the picture for now.

I can still see the definition of "between two indivicuals" as applying even in the case of polygamy because each wife has nothing to do with the other. But what about polyamory couples?

I do not believe in marriage as an abstract or absolute concept. I only understand the word in its practical application. I know that's no help to a philosopher, but I'm not a philosopher.

The Mormon polygamous marriage is not a legal marriage. A few sects may call it that, but calling it marriage doesn't make it marriage. Same for the African ceremonial marriage; that couple is not legally married in the states. The French have an interesting situation now because they have immigrants who were legally polygamously married in their home countries, but France doesn't allow polygamy (I think I have this right, but I might be off on the details.) So the French are having huge issues with things like welfare and public housing because each wife wants her own place.

I don't understand your point about two people being considered to be married, even though they didn't intend it. The only thing I know about that is that common law marriage laws were put into place to address social problems that arose from people cohabiting and not marrying. But they were intentionally cohabiting.

As for the pairing off for promoting the survival of the species, I put in some weasel words about how that particular social unit wants to promote their survival, and that doesn't necessarily mean that all units are reproductive units. At least one Native American tribe had "twin spirit people" who were, they think, transgender people who could live as the other sex and have a household. My other point was that I'm not referring to prehistoric relationships as marriages; I think marriage is a very modern concept, focused on regulating property and care of children and some rights to make decision for the spouse.

But again, I look at this in a practical and legal way. As an example, if you are a registered pharmacist in the US, that doesn't make you one in the Philapines.

Oh GMV your posts have so many points. Do you think that you could state what marriage is in a concise definition?

So the legal definition of marriage is irrelevant to the actual definition?

Jim answered probably better than I was going to. A legal definition is the recipe for implemention. I may be able to define what a house is, but that definition isn't sufficient to build a house that is legally up to code. That code is not necessarily part of the definition of a house, it's just what's necessary to implement it under a specific circumstance.

What do you mean by formalize?

You got me there, since formalizing it usually means a legal document, which opens the door on the legal definition, which I just tried to close the door on. I would say that formalizing it is both the legal contract, and a public declaration - i.e., people now know that you are married. Also, most people aren't concerned with the all the legal implications of their marriage, anyway, so I don't think all the implications need to be part of the definition. The legal implication that most people are concerned with is the one in my original definition (sharing a life and all that comes out of it).

Let's get everyone back on the same page. We've had some view the legal form of marriage as irrelevant to the form while others are viewing the other forms as irrelevant. Let me ask you all this: if each of these examples of marriage were tangible objects in front of you and you took one out would the rest still be considered marriages?

I can still see the definition of "between two indivicuals" as applying even in the case of polygamy because each wife has nothing to do with the other. But what about polyamory couples?

Are they polyamory and married? You asked for a definition of marriage.

Yeah. I saw it on Showtime I think. A show called "Poly". They went out and had a ceremony and two girls and a guy all committed to each other. Aftwards they refered to themselves as being married to each other.

Let's get everyone back on the same page. We've had some view the legal form of marriage as irrelevant to the form while others are viewing the other forms as irrelevant. Let me ask you all this: if each of these examples of marriage were tangible objects in front of you and you took one out would the rest still be considered marriages?

It's the legal form that defines it. Religions have to be recognized in order to perform marriages that are recognized by the state. There are also default marriages in some states, aka common-law, where if you shack up long enough, the state considers you married, whether you like it or not. While the definition of what is a family is self-applied, only the state can declare you married (and make it stick).

I misunderstood you. I thought you meant "describe marriage" and then I responded to some of your comments. I got distracted by the discussion methodology.

I did define it in my first post:

a social convention that has evolved over time and in response to cultural changes.

I guess I'd amend that to read: "Marriage is a social convention, and in the US a legal status and possibly religious status, that was created to control property and to clarify lineage, and that has evolved over time in response to cultural and legal (both civil and religious) changes.

Yeah. I saw it on Showtime I think. A show called "Poly". They went out and had a ceremony and two girls and a guy all committed to each other. Aftwards they refered to themselves as being married to each other.

A committment ceremony doesn't equate to marriage. You can be committed to someone and never marry them. Marriage is a legal relationship. You can also be married and uncommitted. ;)

It's the legal form that defines it. Religions have to be recognized in order to perform marriages that are recognized by the state. There are also default marriages in some states, aka common-law, where if you shack up long enough, the state considers you married, whether you like it or not. While the definition of what is a family is self-applied, only the state can declare you married (and make it stick).

But this defintion changes from country to country and even state to state. There must be something that all of the legal definitions have in common that make them all a marriage.

I misunderstood you. I thought you meant "describe marriage" and then I responded to some of your comments. I got distracted by the discussion methodology.

I did define it in my first post:

a social convention that has evolved over time and in response to cultural changes.

I guess I'd amend that to read: "Marriage is a social convention, and in the US a legal status and possibly religious status, that was created to control property and to clarify lineage, and that has evolved over time in response to cultural and legal (both civil and religious) changes.

A marriage today in the US should still have at least something in common with a marriage in 300 BC in Turkey shouldn't it?

Yeah. I saw it on Showtime I think. A show called "Poly". They went out and had a ceremony and two girls and a guy all committed to each other. Aftwards they refered to themselves as being married to each other.

A committment ceremony doesn't equate to marriage. You can be committed to someone and never marry them. Marriage is a legal relationship. You can also be married and uncommitted. ;)

That's an excellent point. I have a couple of lawful folks on right now. So if the law changed and said that to be married you had to say your vows in front of a judge. This then would make everyone that was married in front of a priest or something not married all of a sudden?

But this defintion changes from country to country and even state to state. There must be something that all of the legal definitions have in common that make them all a marriage.

What they have in common is that the state defines them. Each state may define them differently, may delegate some authority to a third party (priest, ship's captain, minister-for-a-day). Some states (meaning governments) may allow for multiple spouses, or first cousins, or siblings, or whomever they allow - to marry. Some people may develop some other similar relationships, like a committment ceremony, or drawing up legal documents that mimic the benefits of marriage - like inheritance or health insurance coverage. But you're not iofficially married unless the state acknowledges it.

That's an excellent point. I have a couple of lawful folks on right now. So if the law changed and said that to be married you had to say your vows in front of a judge. This then would make everyone that was married in front of a priest or something not married all of a sudden?

No, I think previously married folks are usually grandfathered in. Otherwise, you'd have a mass divorce, and the lawyers would demand their cut.